Obviously, this St. Louis Cardinal didn’t get the word about Spring Training going on in Jupiter, Fla. My high school shutterbug captured this guy during the snowstorm today in St. Louis.
During World War I and World War II, it was considered one’s patriotic duty to plant a “victory garden” in order to reduce food costs. Doing such a thing today, however, could result in one man having to pay a hefty fine or worse if officials in the backward city of Ferguson, Mo., get their way.
According to a news release from Dave Roland at the Freedom Center of Missouri, Karl Tricamo never imagined that it would be especially controversial when he decided to plant a garden in his yard in order to secure cheap, nutritious, organic produce for his family. Just to be sure, however, he looked up all of the relevant ordinances in the city just north of St. Louis and confirmed that he would not be violating any laws.
Tricamo found that nothing in the ordinances prohibit citizens from growing healthy, organic produce on one’s property. In fact, the city’s zoning ordinances specifically allow residents to cultivate community gardens and urban agricultural uses in residential areas.
Because he planted the garden in front of his house instead of behind it, Ferguson city officials soon began to pester Tricamo, going so far as suggesting that his garden was illegal. Roland describes the chain of events that followed:
In March, shortly after he had tilled the garden in preparation for planting, the city sent a letter commanding that the yard be covered in straw and planted with grass seed – even though nothing in the city ordinances requires yards to be planted with grass or prohibits the planting of a garden on residential property.
Six weeks later city officials sent another letter demanding the removal of the vegetables from his yard because the property was not zoned for “agricultural” use, but of course the relevant section of Ferguson’s zoning ordinances explicitly allows gardens to be grown in residential areas. Then the City sent Mr. Tricamo a notice (below) alleging a violation of Ferguson ordinance number 7-133 – but that ordinance addresses the structural elements of residential buildings such as foundations, walls, windows and doors, stairways, chimneys, gutters, roofs, and buildings’ exterior surfaces. It says nothing about yards.
When Mr. Tricamo confronted the City about this violation notice, they rapidly backtracked and claimed that it had been sent by accident! The City said he should disregard the notice, but have continued to insist that Tricamo’s garden is illegal.
Coincidentally, Tricamo’s troubles are taking place just down the road from the city of Hazelwood, Mo., where city officials took issue with two Girl Scouts trying to sell cookies in the driveway. Coincidentally, the same lawyers who represented the city of Hazelwood against Caitlin and Abigail Mills are representing the city of Ferguson.
This situation illustrates a common practice among some city officials, writes Roland in the news release. When all else fails in their attempt to control citizens’ behavior, they sometimes just make stuff up.
Learn more about the case here.
After reading about this case, be sure to order a copy of my book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” It, too, will make your blood boil!
Imagine my surprise when I awoke this morning to find the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had finally published something about the latest Weldon Spring Cancer Report, issued stealthily by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services late last year, but failed to give credit where credit is due — to me!
Click image to read relates stories.
On Jan. 23, I was the only investigative reporter on the planet to publish an article about the existence of the new report, known officially as the Analysis of Leukemia Incidence and Mortality Data for St. Charles County, Weldon Spring and Surrounding Areas December 2011 (Update to April 2005 Report) and unofficially as the “Weldon Spring Update” or “2011 Weldon Spring Cancer Inquiry Report.” Had it not been for my report, it’s very likely that no one would have learned about the MDHSS report released to me Dec. 29 at 5:04 p.m. after nine months of “birddogging” by yours truly.
Eleven days later, Post-Dispatch medical reporter Blythe Bernhard contacted me about the story I had published. Of course, she asked me to explain my interest in the story and to recount how I had come to obtain the report, etc. In addition, she asked me to put her in contact with some of the people mentioned in my piece.
This morning, Bernhard’s story included only one mention of me in the form of this comment:
“When you have something like this you don’t hide it; you at least let people know because they paid for it, especially people in the affected areas,” said Bob McCarty, who lives in the county and writes a political blog. “I’m not an environmentalist. I’ve never hugged a tree. If it’s all good, so be it, but the one thing they need to do is communicate better.”
While I’m pleased that the story received more attention, I’m disgusted — but not surprised — that the Post-Dispatch took the approach to the story that they did. It’s no wonder the Lee Enterprises-owned newspaper filed for bankruptcy protection last year.
EDITOR’S NOTE: To read my stories about the Weldon Spring Site and related stories, click here.
UPDATE 2/22/12 at 8:15 p.m. Central: Below are links to other local media outlets that picked up on the story I broke Jan. 23:
• Geochemist Highly Critical of Weldon Spring Report (CBS Local)
• Daily Dose: Report on Cancer Risk at Weldon Springs is Questioned (Patch.com)
• Health Advocates Criticize State Report on Weldon Spring (KMOX)
Be sure to check out my new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.
UPDATE 3/15/12 at 9:41 p.m. Central: I noticed today that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch scrubbed almost 30 comments from their Feb. 20 story about the Weldon Spring Site. Makes on wonder why they got rid of the comments.
Radiation exposure-related lawsuits are likely to be filed soon, according to Marc J. Bern, senior partner at the New York City-based law firm, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP., who spoke before a crowd of potential clients in St. Louis Thursday.
KMOV-TV Reporter Marc Cox interviews Edwardsville, Ill., attorney Christopher W. Byron following a meeting about radiation exposure-related lawsuits expected to be filed soon in the St. Louis area.
The venue was a 12th-floor meeting room at the Renaissance St. Louis Airport Hotel. The time was 1 p.m. Central. The event was billed as a “Town Hall Meeting” in the flyer circulated in advance on Facebook. Everyone who attended received a folder containing information about nuclear contamination as well as a legal form via which they could become clients of Bern’s firm and/or Edwardsville, Ill.-based Byron Carlson Petri & Kalb, LLC, who co-hosted the meeting.
Based upon how Bern performed in front of a crowd of about six-dozen people (not including lawyers), the 60-ish attorney who said he’s been practicing law for more than three decades knows what buttons to push.
After being introduced by BCPK attorney Christopher W. Byron, Bern told the crowd he had brought with him a team of attorneys and noted that many of them had graduated from New York’s Pace Law School, an institution at which well-known environmental activist Bobby Kennedy Jr. serves as a professor of environmental law. He wanted everyone in the room to know he thinks highly of their skills.
Next, Bern adeptly employed a full complement of persuasive words as he spoke about his firm’s broad-ranging knowledge and experience – much of it gained while representing 9-11 families and numerous others in high-profile lawsuits — and how his firm’s legal talents might be brought to bear against whomever was responsible for the human suffering in the Coldwater Creek area north of St. Louis’ Lambert International Airport.
A question-and-answer session of similar duration followed and, not surprisingly, Bern smoothly and easily answered a dozen or so questions that had been submitted during a short break by the potential clients in the room.
By the time the session ended, I knew lawsuits are on their way to St. Louis and will likely be focused on alleged victims of radiation exposure who live — or lived — in places like Florissant, Hazelwood and a half-dozen other communities. Now, the St. Louis region needs to brace itself for what could turn into a protracted legal battle during which the words “radiation exposure” and “cancer” will likely be used often.
Also worth sharing is the report (above) filed by Marc Cox of KMOV-TV and broadcast this evening.
UPDATE 2/29/12 at 6:23 a.m. Central: According to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report, the first lawsuit was filed Tuesday.
SEE ALSO:
Seventeen days ago, I shared my first report about how Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services officials refused to answer questions about a new Weldon Spring cancer report;
Fifteen days ago, radio talk show host Dana Loesch read that report and had me on The Dana Show to talk about it; and
Six days ago, I was contacted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s medical reporter, Blythe Bernhard, who said she had read my report and would be writing stories about the subject soon.
Click here to see all related stories.
In response to pressure from two freedom-loving attorneys representing them, charges against two petition circulators who were cited last weekend for gathering signatures on the public sidewalks of St. Charles, Mo., will be dropped, according to an announcement this morning by the city’s attorney, Mike Valenti.
What kind of petition were the two unnamed individuals circulating? A news release received this morning from Dave and Jenifer Roland, the Freedom Center of Missouri attorneys who represented the duo, offered the following details:
This controversy was sparked in the early hours of January 15, when two volunteers with the Show-Me Cannabis Regulation campaign were gathering signatures on North Main Street in St. Charles. The ballot initiative seeks to legalize the production, sale, and use of marijuana under Missouri law and to regulate it in a manner similar to tobacco or alcohol. Two police officers approached the petition circulators, issued them citations for “soliciting without a permit,” and confiscated some of the petitions, which included approximately fifty signatures. Acting on behalf of the volunteers, the Freedom Center of Missouri insisted that the First Amendment required the City to drop the charges, return the seized petitions, and to destroy any copies the police had made of those petitions. The City has agreed to comply.
While I’m not an advocate of legalizing marijuana, this outcome is important as it safeguards the freedoms of all, including those of us outside of the “Cheech and Chong crowd,” to circulate petitions on matters near and dear to us.
Good job, Dave and Jenifer!
Many baseball fans in the St. Louis area are either sad, upset and/or disappointed after hearing news this morning about Albert Pujols signing a 10-year, $255 million deal with the Los Angeles Angels. To them, I say, “Not to worry! The folks in the front office of the St. Louis Cardinals made a wise move when they allowed the Hall of Famer to sign with another team.”
Perhaps, an explanation is in order, so here goes it: The average length of a Major League Baseball player’s career is 5.6 years, according to Science Daily. Using that as a guide, Pujols — who has 11 seasons under his belt in St. Louis — has lasted almost twice as long as the average player. By letting another sign “The Machine,” the Cardinals will be able to sign numerous talented players without being burdened by a contract that’s almost guaranteed to turn sour (i.e., Pujols will get hurt and/or wear out).
FYI: If anyone from the Cardinals’ front office is reading this, please know that I’m willing to play any position for a fraction of what you were willing to pay Pujols. Also, my high school son drew the graphic above two years ago at age 13.
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Recently, a woman I’ll call “Janet” met with me for more than six hours to discuss two court cases in which she’s involved. One is a Family Court case involving the welfare of a child, while the other is a Probate Court case involving the welfare of that child’s great-grandmother. Names and case-specific personal details in the stories below have been changed in order to protect the identities of the innocent people involved.
Unlike other middle-age Americans who find themselves caring for both young children and elderly parents, Janet’s status as a member of the “sandwich generation” is unique. Rather than simply care for her almost-seven-year-old granddaughter and her octogenarian mother at the same time, the 40-something woman who once earned six-figure income as manager of a high-end fitness center/spa in a posh St. Louis suburb finds herself fighting for both of them in separate cases at the St. Louis County (Mo.) Courthouse. After years of legal wrangling, she now finds herself on the verge of bankruptcy, having thrown everything she had into the effort to save the two most important people in her life.
“Sometimes I feel like that movie is my life,” said Janet, referring to “Changeling,” a 2008 film in which a grief-stricken mother takes on the Los Angeles Police Department to her own detriment after it stubbornly tries to pass off an obvious impostor as her missing child. Unlike the movie, however, Janet’s child isn’t missing; instead, her granddaughter is on the verge of being taken from her family permanently. In addition, her mother has, for the most part, already been removed from her life.
Janet’s most-pressing concern is the fight to keep her granddaughter, a little girl for whom she’s been the primary caregiver during most of early life, from being placed up for adoption — possibly by total strangers. In less than 10 days, a court hearing could determine whether or not she succeeds in the fight that begun in earnest 15 months ago.
Almost five years ago, Janet convinced her daughter and the biological father of her granddaughter to sign a document that, after being notarized and filed with the court, would have given her legal guardianship of her granddaughter. While the document was notarized, Janet never filed it. Why? Because she was holding out hope that her daughter would change her ways. But she didn’t.
During the early morning hours of a Thursday during the summer of 2010, police officers and paramedics responded to news of a person lying on the ground in front of an apartment building in the St. Louis suburb of University City. Upon arrival, they found a woman unresponsive and barely breathing. It was Janet’s daughter, the 26-year-old mother of a beautiful little girl. She had overdosed on heroin.
The overdose occurred on one of those rare occasions when Janet was not watching her granddaughter and the little girl was being cared for by someone else inside her mother’s home.
As soon as Janet found out about the overdose, she picked up her granddaughter and took her home, fully expecting she would soon become the girl’s full-time guardian until her daughter was able to care for her again after completing rehab.
A hearing was held two days later and, not surprisingly, Janet’s drug-addicted daughter was angry at her mom and didn’t want her child to go with Janet, the responsible parent against whom she liked to lash out, especially when she was in trouble. And she was in trouble.
Perhaps due to Janet’s daughter’s outbursts during the hearing, custody of Janet’s granddaughter went to another woman, the grandmother of Janet’s daughter’s other child by a different father — a woman acting as a foster parent who is not a blood relative of Janet’s granddaughter. This occurred despite the fact that the judge had allowed Janet to intervene early in the case and said placement of the child with her was NOT contrary to the best interest of the child.
The emergency petition to take the granddaughter into state care was falsified and not warranted, Janet said, since she had had her granddaughter for several days after her daughter’s overdose and had ensured she was safe and well-cared for.
By granting temporary custody of Janet’s granddaughter to someone other than a blood relative (i.e., Janet), Children’s Division appears to have violated Missouri law (Section 210.305, RSMo) which requires the agency to give preference and first consideration for foster care placement to grandparents of a child.
I used the word, “appears,” because there is a loophole in the law that allows Children’s Division to avoid placing a child with a grandparent if they deem such placement as being “contrary to the welfare of the child.”
Children’s Division workers who opt for the loophole must, according to the statute, document in writing why the child was not placed with grandparent. In this case, however, they did not conduct a home study or background check on Janet and, as a result, had nothing upon which to base their decision. Apparently, they simply decided that her grandparent status didn’t matter. Falsified reports by Children’s Division workers and the deputy juvenile officer assigned to the case followed to hinder Janet’s efforts to save her granddaughter.
Three months after the little girl was placed with the foster parent, the Family Court judge in charge of the case said Janet should have immediate access to her granddaughter if she passed a drug test. Interestingly, she passed the drug test as well as five other blood and hair-follicle tests during the past year. Inexplicably, the foster parent never had to take a blood test. In addition, Janet had to undergo a psychological evaluation which the foster parent did not.
Despite the judge’s directive and the fact that Janet passed the drug and psych test hurdles, access to her granddaughter continued to be blocked by the foster parent. No birthdays. No holidays. And, for the first time ever, no Christmas morning celebration. As a result, Janet’s granddaughter’s life changed dramatically.
Since being taken from Janet, the trips the gifted child enjoyed with her — to the zoo, theater and symphony — have not happened. Her other regular activities, including swimming lessons, dance, music and art classes, ended as well.
Over the summer, the little girl spent more than 12 hours a day in daycare, arriving at 6 a.m. and leaving at 6 p.m. daily. This fall, despite objections from Janet and from officials at the girl’s school, the judge allowed her to miss several weeks of school so she could travel with the foster parent to a far-away state.
Least urgent to Janet, but only because her mother understands the other legal battle in which Janet is involved, is the fight to free her mother from the confines of a St. Louis-area retirement facility where she is being held against her will.
Janet’s octogenarian mother was in bed sleeping the day in August 2009 when she was removed from her private residence in the nice suburban St. Louis neighborhood where she had lived for more than 50 years, never to return.
Out to dinner at the time her mother was taken, Janet said she had spoken to her earlier that night — around 7 p.m. — and learned from her mother that she was tired from working in the yard all day and had gone to bed early. Everything was fine — or so they thought.
When Janet returned to the home where she lived with her mother — at her mother’s request — around 11 p.m., she found her mother missing. The woman who had taught swim lessons to babies three days a week at the YMCA, attended church regularly and tended to an array of growing things in her well-manicured yard was gone. A Hollywood movie-style nightmare had begun.
Actually, the nightmare began more than a year earlier when Janet’s brother, who had not been involved with either her or their mother for more than two decades, coaxed his mother out of her home and made her sign legal papers in an apparent effort to steal her sizable assets.
A banker friend advised Janet and her mother that they should seek to have Janet installed as her mother’s guardian via the courts to prevent Janet’s brother from doing any more harm to her mother. Following that advice, they took the matter to court and thought they were headed in the right direction. But they were wrong.
Instead of obtaining full legal guardianship, Janet was granted limited guardianship by a judge and a St. Louis County official who was named conservator of Janet’s mother’s estate. The springing durable power of attorney, a legal document that was to “spring” into effect at the point Janet’s mother lost capacity, was disregarded by the court even though it had been prepared by an attorney, signed by Janet’s mother (fully competent at the time) and registered with the office of the recorder of deeds.
Now, fast-forward back to August 2009.
After claiming Janet’s mother was somehow incapable of living on her own, Janet explained, the county official had her removed her from her home and placed in a restricted-access care facility under heavy sedation for three months. In addition, the official prevented Janet from being able to visit her — or even know where she had been taken.
Janet said he left her threatening voice mail messages that said, “You can make it easy on yourself or hard on yourself. You have to deed your half of the house over to me.”
Next, she said, he liquidated her mother’s assets, which included — but were not limited to — a half-million-dollar home in one of the St. Louis area’s finest neighborhoods, its contents (for only $100), life insurance policies and investments.
Janet said her mother has now needlessly used nearly half of the term covered by her long-term care insurance — one of the few assets of her mother that the county official/conservator has not sold — and will likely be tossed out of the home at the end of that term and placed in a low-end Medicaid bed somewhere else. So much for her plans to stay in her own home as long as possible an use the policy when it was needed.
Today, Janet’s mother lives in a closet-size room at another retirement retirement facility where she continues to be kept in a locked-down memory care unit, unable to go beyond certain locked-door boundaries without an escort. The only person allowed to take her on outings away from the home, Janet said, is the son who set into motion all of the events that resulted in her being confined against her will in the first place.
Does Janet’s mother really belong in a locked-down unit at a nursing home? Not according to a St. Louis-area physician who is among the nation’s leading researchers on the subject of dementia.
In a “To whom it may concern” letter written 10 days before Janet’s mother was removed from her home, the physician who had cared for the woman for 17 months wrote the following about her condition:
(She) was diagnosed with dementia secondary to chronic stress exacerbated by her involvement with her son. Since being separate from her son, she has demonstrated significant improvement in her cognitive function. At this time, (she) has the mental capacity to determine where she would prefer to live.
Nursing home placement at this time would not be in the best interest of (Janet’s mother) with respect to her mental and physical health.
The court, however, ignored the expert physician’s opinion and sided with the public administrator, leaving Janet’s mother trapped against her will in the locked-down unit of a retirement home.
With few options remaining available to her, Janet told me she expects to file federal lawsuits during the next two weeks against the judges and other officials involved in both cases. Unfortunately, she’s not likely to get far, because two things are working against her:
First, the Missouri House has impeached only two Missouri judges since the Civil War era, and both resigned before they could be removed, according to the Missouri Courts web site; and
Second, Guardian Ad Litems, the individuals — usually attorneys — charged with looking out for the interests of children in court cases, are accountable only to the judges who appoint them.
The time for Family Court reform is now.
For more news about justice denied, read other posts in my series, Family Court Nightmares.
UPDATE 9/17/11 at 6:44 p.m. Central: Cross-posted at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com.
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!